- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Although it's amusing to see Dukakis flog himself a bit, the fact is that in 1988, the Democrats were being roundly outflanked by the reactionary movement of the GOP (the outflanking of the Dems today is purely reflexive, almost Pavlovian, after so many years of experiencing it); back in '88, they were simply stunned, busy trying to work with a GOP that was increasingly motivated to destroy the Democrats.
What's more, back then, Americans had the luxury of their own ignorance of the GOP's primary political motivation -- their ideas seemed new and refreshing to the politically gullible majority. But after so many years of them getting their way, with American prosperity evaporating under their watch, under their guiding ideology, corruption, and mismanagement -- well, today, it doesn't sell so well, as McCain amply demonstrates.
I don't think even a Dukakis win in '88 would've stopped what steamrolled America in the heyday of the reactionary movement. If anything, it might've hastened the demise of the New Deal, as Republicans attacked it from the sidelines, with the Democrats happy to not appear soft on anything.
Even Bill Clinton, the Democratic "success" story of the 90s, won by out-Republicanning the Republicans. There's no guarantee that a Dukakis one- or two-term presidency might not have been similarly co-opted.
Blaming GW Bush (or even Cheney) as the prime movers of where the country is today ignores the larger underpinnings of the reactionary ideological industry that's worked tirelessly since about 1974 to undermine democracy in this country.
